Retaining experience on the Bench

The story so far:The Supreme Court is aggressively pushing for a nation-wide uniform enhancement of the retirement age from 60 to 62 years in the district judiciary to arrest the attrition of experience and talent on the Bench. There is a yawning gap as vacancies in the district judiciary continue to burgeon while pendency has reached 5.18 crore, denying ordinary citizens the basic right to timely justice. Union government figures of February 2026 show that compared to the sanctioned strength of 25,894 judicial officers, the working strength is only 21,027. At present, the Judge-to-population ratio in the country works out to be approximately 22 judges per million population. The judiciary’s greatest strength, which is public faith, is fast-depleting.Despite the “crisis in the dispensation of justice” and the “crying need” for more judges on the Bench, a September 1, 2026 order of the Supreme Court, in a long-standing litigation initiated by the All India Judges Association, shows that only seven States have responded positively to the proposal to increase the age of superannuation of their judicial officers though almost all High Courts have supported the suggestion from the Supreme Court. The other States have outrightly dismissed the recommendation or are plainly fence-sitting, worried about the costs involved in such a move. The High Courts have administrative control over the district judiciary under Article 235 of the Constitution, while the State governments are the paymasters.The Supreme Court is however firm that States cannot dilly-dally. The problem is too grave, chronic, and immediate. The court gave the recalcitrant States two weeks to decide and submit compliance reports on the question of enhancement of retirement age to 62 years. The court noted that the last enhancement of retirement age was in 1992. Since then, the sanctioned strength of the judiciary has increased, but many posts remain vacant due to a lack of eligible candidates. Retaining experienced judicial officers was crucial for the effective administration of justice.What is the latest order on the issue from the Supreme Court?The Supreme Court issued clear, actionable directions on September 1. It ordered the seven consenting States of Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal to amend their service rules to enhance the retirement age to 62 years, subject to a suitability assessment of the judicial officers to be done at age of 60 by the High Courts concerned. This direction has to be complied with in two months.As an interim protection measure, the three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant ordered that, pending the amendments to the service rules, no judicial officer in these States who has reached 60 should be retired until 62, again subject to suitability assessment.Further, the court said judicial officers in the seven States who retired on or after March 31, 2026, may opt to rejoin service, if not already employed elsewhere, with restoration of pay, seniority, and continuity, subject to suitability and surrender of post-retirement benefits.The Supreme Court welcomed the suggestion from High Courts that extension beyond 60 years should be subject to a performance assessment. This would ensure that the judicial service was rid of “deadwood” and only competent officers continue. The court said the retention of capable officers would enrich the district judicial service and balance the need for experience with the infusion of new talent.Why are the other States hesitant?The States opposed or shy of raising the retirement age include Assam, Bihar, Haryana, Kerala, Manipur, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh. The States which are still considering the proposition span Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Odisha, Rajasthan, Telangana, Tripura, NCT of Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir and Puducherry.The key concerns cited by the States are primarily the additional financial burden which the State exchequer would have to bear; the move may give rise to potential disaffection among other government employees, who may claim parity with the judicial officers in retirement age; it may hurt the career progression of younger judicial officers.The Supreme Court has explained that the judicial service was distinct. It has referred to a reported judgment of 1993 involving the same petitioner (All India Judges Association) to observe that judicial service was not just ‘employment’. The Bench quoted that “Judges are not employees. They exercise the sovereign judicial power of the state. They are holders of the public offices in the same way as the members of the Council of Ministers and Members of the Legislature”.On the financial front, the Supreme Court found that constraints on the purse were simply overstated. It said simple math showed that the additional financial outlay was negligible compared to the benefits of retaining experienced Judges. The Supreme Court reasoned that delaying retirement postponed the need to pay post-retirement benefits and avoided the costs associated with training new recruits.The Court said the States should rather consider this as an opportunity to remove the clog of “deadwood” or under-performers who are blocking the entrance of young blood into the judicial system.What is the perceived outcome if all States come on board?The Supreme Court has said that the induction of competent judicial officers was a sine qua non for the preservation of an independent judiciary, which forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The September 1 order is a decisive step towards judicial reform, aiming to strengthen the district judiciary by retaining experienced officers and addressing chronic vacancies. The order balances the interests of the judiciary, the States, and litigants, while upholding the unique constitutional status of judicial officers.